FOXGLOVE dataset of 2340 comments shows LLMs and instructors align on feedback goals and positions but diverge on sentence selection, with LLMs using more complex language and fewer questions and higher quality ratings driven by comment length.
Expos\'ia: Teaching and Assessment of Academic Writing Skills for Research Project Proposals and Peer Feedback
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
We present Expos\'ia, the first public dataset that connects writing and feedback in higher education, enabling research on educationally grounded computational approaches to teaching and evaluating academic writing. Expos\'ia includes student research project proposals and peer and instructor feedback consisting of comments and free-text reviews. The dataset was collected in the "Introduction to Scientific Work" course of the Computer Science. Expos\'ia reflects the multi-stage nature of the academic writing process that includes drafting, receiving feedback, and revising the writing based on the feedback received. Both the project proposals and peer feedback are accompanied by human assessment scores based on a fine-grained, pedagogically-grounded schema for writing and feedback assessment that we develop. We use Expos\'ia to benchmark state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on two tasks: automated scoring of (1) the proposals and (2) the student reviews. We find that the two tasks benefit from different LLMs. Furthermore, closed-source models consistently outperform open-weight models, motivating further research on improving the performance of open-weight models preferred in classroom settings. Finally, we establish that a prompting strategy that scores multiple aspects of the writing together is the most effective, an important finding for classroom deployment.
years
2026 2verdicts
UNVERDICTED 2representative citing papers
Method infers and refines natural-language rubrics from inline comments on artifacts via LLM-based prediction mismatches, evaluated in real-world and controlled settings to support comment prediction and revision.
citing papers explorer
-
FOXGLOVE: Understanding Goal-Oriented and Anchored Writing Feedback from Experts and LLMs on Argumentative Essays
FOXGLOVE dataset of 2340 comments shows LLMs and instructors align on feedback goals and positions but diverge on sentence selection, with LLMs using more complex language and fewer questions and higher quality ratings driven by comment length.
-
Feedback-to-Rubrics: Can We Learn Expert Criteria from Inline Comments?
Method infers and refines natural-language rubrics from inline comments on artifacts via LLM-based prediction mismatches, evaluated in real-world and controlled settings to support comment prediction and revision.